JIT RAM Vs. CHELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under S.482 of the Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts, camp at Kullu, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner Jit Ram herein, against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lauhal and Spiti District at Kullu, dated September 29, 1986 in proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Cr. P.C. whereby respondent No. 2 Guddi, minor daughter of respondent No. 1 Smt. Cheli was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.

(2.) The facts are that the respondent Cheli Devi filed a petition under S.125 of the Cr. P.C. for herself and on behalf of the minor daughter Guddi as her next friend against the petitioner whereby she prayed that she be allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- and the minor daughter Rs. 200/- per month. In that petition, she claimed that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner which marriage took place in the month of April 1983 in accordance with the local custom and they thereafter cohabited as husband and wife in village Kishori in tehsil Udaipur and their union resulted in the birth of respondent No. 2 on June 5, 1985, but soon after the birth of respondent No. 2, the petitioner left the society and also refused to maintain her and the child and hence the petition, as she had no independent means of livelihood to maintain herself and the child and she was residing with the child in her parental house and her parents also were not in a position to maintain them, whereas the petitioner was having an annual income of Rs. 40,000/- or 50,000/-. The petitioner contested that petition in the trial court and in his reply he denied that the first respondent was legally wedded wife of the petitioner or that their union resulted in the birth of respondent No. 2. His case was that as a matter of fact the first respondent was a legally wedded wife of one Krishan Lal son of Chendu resident of village Sandwari in the same tehsil which marriage took place on March 26, 1973 and since polyandry is prevalent in their community, the first respondent also subsequently became the wife of the younger brother of Krishan Lal, named Shamsher and her union with Shamsher resulted in the birth of one daughter named Kanta alias Hira Devi on April 28, 1974 and that she still continued to be joint wife of said Krishan Lal and Shamsher and the petitioner had nothing to do with her. He further averred that he himself was a married man whose marriage with one Smt. Dev Devi, daughter of Baldev resident of village Kishori, tehsil Udaipur, took place on November 20, 1977 and his cohabitation with said Dev Devi after the marriage has resulted in the birth of three children, namely, one son and two daughters and they were still leading a happy married life and as such the question of his contracting a second marriage with the first respondent did not arise.

(3.) The trial court then examined evidence adduced on either side and vide order dated Sept. 29, 1986 found that since no divorce between the first respondent and her joint husbands Krishan Lal and Shamsher was proved on record, she legally continued to be their wife and even if it is presumed that she contracted marriage with the petitioner, the same was void under law and as such she was not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner. The court further held that since it was proved that the minor girl Guddi, second respondent, was born as a result of illicit union between the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner was liable to maintain the child, second respondent though illegitimate and it, therefore, ordered that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 200/- per month to the second respondent by way of maintenance.